Ukraine's fighter pilots are vastly outnumbered by the Russians, and have become legendary - thanks in part to the story of an alleged flying ace called the "Ghost of Kyiv".

This hero is said to have downed as many as 40 enemy planes - an incredible feat in an arena where Russia controls the skies.

But now the Ukraine Air Force Command has warned on Facebook that the "Ghost of Kyiv is a superhero-legend whose character was created by Ukrainians!".

"We ask the Ukrainian community not to neglect the basic rules of information hygiene," the message said, urging people to "check the sources of information, before spreading it".

Earlier reports had named the ace as Major Stepan Tarabalka, 29. The authorities confirmed that he was killed in combat on 13 March and honoured with a Hero of Ukraine medal posthumously.

Now, the air force stresses that "Tarabalka is not 'Ghost of Kiev', and he did not hit 40 planes". — BBC

They've become legends! Thanks to lies that people believed, and their belief created the legend, but also didn't believe and actually co-wrote a new myth! ... Information Hygiene people! Because we care about the truth!

It's literally taking people for total fools a lot of this stuff.

Thanks for proving my point. — Olivier5

Proving what point?

Boethius is the true professional Putin-paid troll here. — Olivier5

You do realise that this is a pretty pathetic cope for someone afraid of engaging with opposing view points?

Or do you really believe you've made some sound argument based on zero evidence?

There are differences between them, though. Boethius is an FSB plant, no doubt in my mind about him, or he would not defend the bombing of civilians like he did. But @Isaac is just a confused, truth-abhorring cretin -- he is Gollum, not Sauron. — Olivier5

Where do I defend the bombing of civilians?

Pointed out a war crime (in the judicial sense and not internet-meme sense) requires a judicial process, is not "defending" bombing of civilians.

It just so happens that bombing civilians is not in itself a war crime according to our own Western definition; Western armies have bombed plenty of civilians since planes have been invented.

Likewise, pointing out Russia has nuclear weapons is not defending the use of nuclear weapons, just pointing out obvious facts and risks that should be taken into account.

Finally, pointing out that assuming just war justifies lying, that it therefore justifies lying about the reasons for the just war, is not defending one side or another.

My position, which has been consistent, is that my preference is peace and that only diplomacy will achieve that, for Ukrainians as much as for Russians or anyone else, and diplomacy requires understanding the other point of view.

Pointing out that the Western media repeating at face value obvious lies, like the ghost of Kiev, and then immediately praising Ukrainian information warfare and "myth making" the moment Kiev itself admits it's a lie, reduces the credibility of the Western media to zero -- that we're literally at the point of: "we're lying to you, but here why that's a good thing!" -- is not somehow incompatible with the idea that the Russians are also doing propaganda (which was already the object of a long discussion with people here refusing the idea that both Russia and Ukrainians and the US and EU are all engaged in propaganda, and whatever "seeds of truth" we can find and agree on, such as some Nazi's are in Ukraine, aren't "off limits" because it is inconvenient to the propaganda of one side or another).

Pointing out no one has actually made a coherent and complete argument explaining Ukrainian just war, that it is simply assumed by Ukrainian proponents, is not saying Russia has just cause either. As I mentioned: maybe neither has, maybe both have.

If just cause of previous wars are still debated to this day, sometimes many centuries if not millennia after they occurred, doubting the moral prescriptions of people who have zero hesitation to explain how they are lying as part of those moral prescriptions, and that's a good thing!, is pretty easy position to defend intellectually.

But, if you disagree, explain to me why it's right to believe Kiev's lies and also then immediately believe the truth that it was a lie when admitted but simultaneously believe it was right that they lied and to believe it was nevertheless true in a rewriting of my own memories that I was "co-creating" a necessary simplified myth all along.

Nazi party was founded in 1920, which is 2 years after the Finnish plane.

The Nazi Party,[a] officially the National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or NSDAP), was a far-right[7][page needed][8] political party in Germany active between 1920 and 1945 that created and supported the ideology of Nazism. — wikipedia

Additionally, it's a tiny party at the time, the symbol is a common and there would be no reason for anyone to believe the Finnish airforce is supporting some small party in Germany by using the same symbol.

It's only a "big thing" in retrospect after the Nazi's take over Germany and start WWII.

That there are Nazi sympathisers in Finland both leading up to WWII and during WWII and also after, I would not dispute. However, unlike Azov battalion, these Nazi sympathisers don't have their own institution and integration into the government.

However, this history seems largely irrelevant to the current situation (the current war is in Ukraine, the current government in Finland wanting to join NATO is very left and a long way from being far-right, the direct support for Nazi's in Ukraine comes from the US, and EU countries are simply lapdogs in this affair without much autonomy, so their internal politics is largely irrelevant in any case; the Finnish government supports Nazi's in Ukraine because they are told that's not true and told what to do, so that's the end of the political discourse about that; left or right doesn't matter and it's the same for nearly all EU countries).

In what? Do you read your own sources? The symbol had nothing to do with Hitler or Nazism. — Baden

Which, of note, Naziism had not yet been invented in 1918.

Hitler viewed Scandinavians ( + Finland) as "good aryans" and so borrowed a lot of nordic symbolism.

The basic Swastika motif not being particularly nordic though.

The swastika symbol, 卐 or 卍, today primarily recognized in the West for its use by the Nazi party,[1] is an ancient religious symbol in various Eurasian cultures. It is used as a symbol of divinity and spirituality in Indic religions, including Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism.[2][3][4][5][6] It generally takes the form of a cross, the arms of which are of equal length and perpendicular to the adjacent arms, each bent midway at a right angle.[7][8] — wikipdia

The wikipedia lists almost the entire world under the heading "Historical uses".

Second, I wasn’t exclusively referring to the current scenario but also to the risks of escalation as one of your zealous fellows has warned all of us about — neomac

The risk is obvious.

Here are two experts discussing the very real risk of nuclear escalation, posted a few days after my comments:



The conclusion is exactly the same as mine, which is that currently only "taboo" in their words (but same concept as "breaking the ice"), is the main thing holding back use of tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine.

The other thing is that Russia is still making gains using conventional methods, and so does not "need" to use tactical nuclear weapons.

And if the situation is maintained (of steady Russian gains and occupying most of the territory it says is the goal), then there's no reason to expect Russian policy to suddenly change.

However, this is not a stable situation. The context could easily change.

To give an opposing point of view, that Putin is "bluffing", here is another commentator:



With a video literally called "Calling Russia's Nuclear Bluff".

In terms of world ending nuclear exchange, Russia isn't making that threat.

The threat is presented always in ambiguous terms, but it's pretty clear the threat to use nuclear weapons is in Ukraine, not against NATO.

As @ssu points out, the threats (or then just the nuclear weapons in themselves) have already dissuaded NATO from things like a no-fly zone and giving heavy weapons early game (to be seen if heavy weapons now are symbolic gestures or not, but clearly it was to Russia's advantage that NATO only supplied limited weapons and still only supplies limited weapons). Given the public holy furore, boots on the ground in Ukraine would have been extremely likely absent nuclear weapons. So the the very real threat of nuclear weapons has already deterred direct NATO involvement.

If Russia was to use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine, it extremely unlikely NATO would launch a world ending nuclear strike. People would be upset, implement whatever sanctions are left to implement, but finally accept it.

The danger to Ukraine is obvious. The danger to the world would be hyper charging nuclear proliferation.

One may postulate various geopolitical constraints, such as assuming China would be upset about Russia using nuclear weapons. However, these sorts of assumptions are tenuous. More conflict and tensions in Europe the less "pivot" happens in the East. We do not know what Xi thinks about things, or wants, now or in some new context.

From the current situation, where Russians forces have no easy way out, and are set to get pummeled for weeks on end. You are dreaming of a possible way out of this mess, and towards victory for Moscow. It will not happen, it's only a wet dream of yours. — Olivier5

Russia has nuclear weapons. Russia can use nuclear weapons to easily win battles. That is not a dream.

Claiming Ukraine will be given nuclear weapons by NATO or then could make their own nuclear weapons in a few months ... sounds familiar ... sounds really familiar.

Sounds exactly like:

From the current situation, where Ukrainian forces have no easy way out, and are currently getting pummeled for weeks on end. You are dreaming of a possible way out of this mess, and towards victory for Kyev. It will not happen, it's only a wet dream of yours.

It's just a form of escapism from the resident FSB influencer here, i.e. boethius. Nothing more. — Olivier5

You state NATO passing nukes to Ukraine to nuke Moscow and Saint Petersburg is not only plausible in some version of reality, but also that Russia would be just like "so clever" and that technically Ukraine launching NATO's nukes would matter in the slightest.

You state I'm a "FSB influencer" for saying things you don't like and have no rational response to.

Yet somehow I'm living a fantasy.

And escapism from what? Obviously Russia could use tactical nuclear weapons, and obviously from a military perspective it is completely rational to use a bigger bomb if you have a bigger bomb, and obviously the long list of political reasons that no one would be using Nukes anywhere that we could list only 3 months ago is getting thinner by the day.

How close are we to literally no political reasons left to dissuade from the use of nuclear weapons? I have not said, only that the required context maybe far closer than it seems.

Ignoring the obvious by simultaneously dismissing the risk, while also believing NATO would give Ukraine nuclear weapons in such a scenario is the escapism.

Russian nuclear weapons will basically halt any incursions into Russia proper by Ukraine. Putin doesn't have to keep large formations on his side of the border. — ssu

Exactly, in terms of military logic, it makes enormous amounts of sense, not only vis-a-vis Ukraine if they ever did successfully counter attack, but of any other bordering country to Russia ... would obviously think twice.

The Kremlin may also be start to be feeling there's a target on their back as we enter into ecological collapse, that they have what countries will be craving: arable land, water and energy ... and more than they had before.

There is now only political factors, in my opinion, preventing the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Political factors which seems less and less relevant as time goes by as far as I can see.

And Russian nuclear weapons have already done what they were supposed to do: have Joe Biden declare that under no circumstances US troops won't be deployed to Ukraine and NATO aircraft won't create a no-fly zone over Ukraine. — ssu

Agreed, standing up to a bully is only "heroic" if the bully can be beaten in a Hollywood style coming of age movie.

The truly powerful take what they want and are idolised for it.

... Take our friends the Americans ...

A tactical nuke would however put them in a position where they have nothing left in terms of diplomacy with the west. — Christoffer

You assume Russia needs diplomacy with the West.

... and that the current situation is the West handing out fig leaves or something?

Russia would solidify its existence as a criminal nation and they would probably not be able to heal any diplomatic ties for a very very long time. — Christoffer

According to "us", the West ... which, see point above, they may not care about nor their strategic partners such as China, India and co.

It's basically the nail in the coffin for Russia as a nation, slowly disintegrating down into a nation that's falling behind on any front. In 20 years, the world will have moved past them in every way, probably putting up defensive systems around the nation to block any attempts of nukes going out of it while the technological advancements outside of Russia will make them look like the stone age. — Christoffer

We're already discussed at length that affect of sanctions largely depends on the sentiment of the ordinary Russian, which as far as we know has consolidated around support for the war, as well as substitutes of all critical equipment and services from China, which as far as we know covers everything.

Many here argue for each nation to be responsible for their own development, that it's each and every independent nation's right to develop however they want. That also means that actions stretching outside of a nation can have consequences; that becoming an isolated nation is part of the internal development each independent nation is responsible for. No one is to blame for Russia's failures and how they're now treated. The rest of the world can choose however they want to interact with Russia and if they don't want to interact with them, then Russia has no right to demand anything. — Christoffer

I don't disagree with this.

Ukraine might continue to fight as long as there's material support from the west. They had massive morale going into defending their country and being able to push back the big bear Russia this much would seriously have boosted their morale even further, combined with the anger of the war crimes.

I don't think Ukraine will settle easily, they want justice for Russia's crimes and they might fight until every single Russian in Ukraine is killed, captured, or sent home. — Christoffer

"Morale" does not in itself win battles or wars.

... If you're suggesting settlement (peace terms) is the only possible resolution of the war (as nearly all wars end), then the optimum time to settle was in the early days, leveraging exactly that morale you mention to fanatically engage in chaotic total war.

Russia's reasoning doesn't matter, only their actions do. And if they use nukes, they can sit there and think that they're on top of the world, but their nation will become an isolated cesspool of decades-old technology in a nation just living through survival of national food supply and rusting cars with no actual progress. — Christoffer

Sure, maybe.

Tactical nukes won't be the same as regular nuclear weapons. — Christoffer

A tactical nuclear weapon is a regular nuclear weapon, only of smaller yield and delivery vehicle for use in battle, such as a cruise missile or even artillery shell. The word tactical simply connotes the design purpose to be aid in the winning of battles.

A strategic nuclear weapon, is an extension of as strategic bombing ... with simply a lot bigger bomb, and is not designed to win battles--delivery vehicles, such as ICBM's, may have minimum ranges of thousands of kilometres and minimum yields so large that there is no plausible battle situation where it would make sense to use--and are designed to change strategic economic factors like "cities existing".

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but this is just a quick note for people who wonder what the difference between tactical and strategic comes from. The criticism of bombing cities to rubble far from the front lines was met with the rebuttal "it's strategic", and that nomenclature has stuck.

They continue to fail because they're stupid. Only stupid armies dig trenches in the Red forest. — Christoffer

If you put soldiers nearly anywhere they will start building trenches. It's unlikely this was some "battle plan" coming down from the top.

I honestly fail to see the Russian actions as "stupid". They may fail, now or then later as you say, but the decisions are clearly well thought out and not stupid. Ukraine has embarrassing failures as well, such as letting Russia capture "bio labs".

The consequences of the nukes in Japan should not be understated. It wasn't trivial, it was world-defining and there weren't any political or existential consequences imagined before the bombings as there were after the bombings. Historical context is very important here. — Christoffer

I did not say the use of nuclear weapons in Japan was trivial. It was, more than anything, the events that started the cold war that defined nearly the rest of the century.

However, the point of this example is that there can be a context in which ordinary people support the use of nuclear weapons. The justification of the use of nuclear weapons on Japan was to save American lives, and, faced with a equally fanatical enemy willing to fight to the death (for good reasons or bad) it may at some point make as much sense to Russians to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine for the same reasoning.

I am not saying that context currently exists, only it could be far closer than it seems.

But this isn't true, the majority is against Russia's invasion, as seen through UN's votes. — Christoffer

@Isaac already pointed out the face-value flaw in that metric.

However, more relevant metrics would be trade relations and sanctions and diplomatic pressure and sending arms to Ukraine all of which is a "West" thing. I.e. metrics of caring that actually matter and are not essentially symbolic due to Russia's security council veto in the UN.

Putin’s plan was the Ukrainian army would fold and Russia would install a puppet regime in days or st most weeks. — Wayfarer

This was certainly plan A and the preferred result was either collapse of the Ukrainian regime or then accepting the peace terms on offer.

But considering they took their positions in south of Ukraine in a matter of days and "denazified" the Azov brigade all the to a few starting holdouts in Azovstal, it seems non-credible to say the Kremlin, or then at least the Russian generals, had a plan B.

Also, the whole analysis that Russia expected Ukraine to collapse completely ignores the last 8 years, the size of Ukraine, and the US and NATO support to Ukraine.

Ukraine has been waging a fanatical war against the Dombass breakaway regions for 8 years, training up with NATO, getting fighting experience, and developing further a fanatical war fighting ideology (NAZI or otherwise), and any competent military analyst would view a total war response by Ukraine as one obvious potential outcome as well as NATO escalating sanctions and flooding arms into Ukraine.

What is unknown is how probable the Kremlin viewed the current total war scenario.

What is equally unknown is the extent the Kremlin actually wanted to bait Ukraine into a total war scenario to obliterate their long term war fighting infrastructure, make the point of walking up to the biggest and baddest country in the region and punch them in the face, while also raising commodity prices.

Six months ago, it was a fantasy that Ukraine would ever get Javelins. Now they have thousands. And one month ago, it was a fantasy that Ukraine would ever get heavy artillery from NATO. Now the Canadians and US are giving them dozens of M777 Howitzers. — Olivier5

It wasn't fantasy.

Ukraine was already being armed and trained by NATO for their war in the Dombass.

The precedent of waging proxy war with conventional weapons goes way back, there's nothing particular unusual in the situation.

NATO giving Ukraine nuclear weapons to strike Russia is pure fantasy and Russia is unlikely to accept this "aha, technically we only 'loaned' some nukes to Ukraine, no string attached as nuclear powers are want to do, so, gotcha, you can't nuke us back".

All NATO would be achieving by giving a couple of nukes to their friends in Ukraine to casually nuke Moscow and Saint Petersburg, would be to risk strategic nuclear response without even the benefit of a nuclear first strike.

Russia has a lot to lose if it uses nukes against Ukraine. First, what would actually Russia achieve with using tactical nukes? — ssu

In the current situation, I agree with your evaluation, why I mention some further escalation as the trigger, from Ukraine or from NATO and/or both.

However, to understand the rational for using nuclear weapons, one needs to explore what happens if the premises of your current argument changes. As I mention, things only "seem stable" because we have gotten accustomed to the carnage, but the situation may be far from stable in terms of all sorts of variables we cannot currently see.

Assuming if there would be a large Ukrainian formation nicely packed up, then tactical nuclear weapon could take out of action one Ukrainian formation. — ssu

This is still pretty convenient in terms of military tactics to simply "take out" a Ukrainian formation. However, there's also fortified bases and bunkers that cannot easily be completely obliterated by conventional means.

A concentrated use of let's say strategic bombers with conventional weapons would come close to a similar strike, but wouldn't actually create any outcry. — ssu

I'm not sure if NATO and the EU can escalate the current "outcry", for one, and the Kremlin may simply no longer care what NATO and the EU do or say if the context develops in which using nuclear weapons has more pros than cons.

The simple way to counter the use of nukes is to spread your forces and not have large formations, large airfields or concentrations that would be optimal for nuclear weapons. Or then Putin could attack civilian targets and get some Ukrainian city to be remembered similarly as Hiroshima and Nagasaki. — ssu

This is not simple.

I doubt civilian targets would be targeted, although civilians would certainly die as well.

For starters, if Russia uses nukes against Ukraine, I doubt that China, India or South Africa among others will be as if nothing has happened and openly do business with Russia. Let's just remember that there are countries that are willing to buy that Russian gas and oil. Especially for China to back the use of nukes against a non-nuclear state would be a tough spot. — ssu

These are the main political reasons against using nuclear weapons. However, the world view and political response of Russia's remaining partners is not so easily predictable. But China and India (governing elites) may have now, or then it develops in the future, some reason to either accept Russia using tactical nuclear weapons (sets the precedent that they can too).

The world also doesn't solely run on social media judgements. Russia has resources countries need and it's easy to rationalise buying what you need from the cheapest source.

Do we not too wear Nikes?

(or some equivalent symbol of questionable fabrication practices that make our sneakers cheaper than they otherwise would be?)

And Ok, if you do use one or two tactical nukes, what if Ukraine doesn't budge? What if Zelensky is the real McCoy continues fighting and doesn't throw in the towel? Iranians didn't throw in the towel when Iraq used chemical weapons against them. — ssu

The anti-Russian rhetoric should maybe taken more seriously.

If Russia is "being the bully" and has no legitimate grievances in Ukraine that justify, at least from some arguably Western (aka. the truth) normative perspective, then the reason for using nuclear weapons to intimidate other neighbour's to maintain bully credibility is so high that the use of nuclear weapons by Russia is essentially inevitable at this point if the premises of the rhetoric are true.

If Putin is evil, literally Hitler, already committing genocide, and the risk of a strategic response from NATO is very low, then I honestly don't see why Putin wouldn't use nuclear weapons? Definitely seems to me like an evil thing to do.

In our discussions I believe we both agree the situation is more nuanced, but the rhetoric on this point could be true. We don't really know what Putin and the Kremlin wants or how he'd react in this or that situation.

I word it "breaking the ice" on the use of nuclear weapons due to the wider contextual consequences, not because it would immediately win the war in Ukraine.

In terms of military tactics in Ukraine, it is possible that Ukraine can withstand one or two tactical nukes as you describe, but it would certainly result in a stalemate as spreading your forces out essentially rules out any concentrated offensive, and formation that concentrates for a breakthrough manoeuvre just gets nuked.

It may of course be the case that Lavrov is full of shit but the people who unhesitatingly regurgitate Western propaganda as per the above are verifiably full of shit. — StreetlightX

Whatever else people want to say about Lavrov, Putin or the Kremlin, it seems pretty clear that the risk of nuclear war is far higher than before the crisis.

And it's pretty easy to argue that any increase in the risk of nuclear war is unacceptable.

The statements are simply true about the risks.

What people can take issue with is the part where Lavrov expresses those risks are unacceptable; i.e. his normative rather than factual parts of his statement.

Lavrov and the Kremlin may want nuclear escalation at this point for all we know ... which, if true, makes the statement about the risks being significant far higher and even "more factual". But, whatever the Kremlin wants, the risks are obviously higher now than before the war.

Of course, it wouldn't work for propaganda purposes since if the Western media accused Lavrov of being disingenuous and actually wanting the situation to escalate to nuclear weapons ... then the followup question is why is NATO playing into Russia's hand?

The rationale would be to get rid of a nuclear terrorist state. — Olivier5

Worthy goal.

And NATO does not even need to launch. — Olivier5

Lot's of reasons why it would be necessary for NATO to launch to "get rid" of Russia.

All it needs to do is donate a few missiles to Ukraine. — Olivier5

Fantasy.

There is no prospect of World War III, Russia’s army is in chaos, ill equipped and poorly trained. Largely a spent force. — Punshhh

If this is true, then nuclear weapons are the next step. Why would Russia just call it quits?

If it's not true, and Russia unambiguously defeats Ukraine in the Easter theatre and Ukraine can't take back Kherson is where risk of Russian using nuclear weapons is low.

I agree that even if Russia does use nuclear weapons the risk of WWIII is low, at least in the form of mutually assured destruction being implemented.

However, lot's of chaotic scenarios we may decide to call WWIII even if ICBM's aren't used and only a few choice tactical nukes here and there. For example China may decide to invade Taiwan and other wars may erupt due to food shortages and general discombobulation of the international system.

The phrasing is "shouldn't be underestimated". It's simply true. We shouldn't underestimate war leading to more war.

The Western media projects an image of NATO basically in control of the situation and knowing what they're doing.

This may simply turn out not to be true.

In basic risk analysis you multiple the risk by the impact to get a factor for comparison. Even if WWIII is low probability, it is very high impact, and so easily of greater concern than a lot of other dangers.

The Putin apologists are proving unhinged. — Punshhh

The issue of nuclear weapons being used has already been discussed at length. All those reasons and scenarios have not gone away and may have actually increased even if Johny Depp now dominates the news cycle and the Western media has a new toy ... the old toys of gasoline and firecrackers haven't been put away.

Noting that tactical nuclear weapons are optimum military strategy is not controversial. In military terms, if you have a bigger bomb than the opposing side it's an advantage. The reasons to not use nuclear weapons are political and not military.

All your reasoning (if true, that Russia is weak in conventional forces) simply supports the conclusion they may use nuclear weapons, that they would have nothing else to lose.

So, I'm not sure if you're even disagreeing with my point, or just disapproving of the use of nuclear weapons.

I also disapprove.

One could argue pouring in debt and conventional weapons into Ukraine to the point that Russia uses nuclear weapons would be for the glory of Ukraine, and a worthy sacrifice to demonstrate just how "shameful" the Russians are. If one wants definitive proof that "Putin be bad" then I see how that logic works.

Russia has nothing left but this. — Christoffer

Currently Russia is making gains in Dombass, so we'll see the result there.

They have also already taken Kherson, the canal to Crimea, taken Mariupol except a few hold outs, destroyed Azov brigade, made their land bridge, and degraded Ukraines war industry and war fighting infrastructure and skills and knowledge.

If they succeed in current operation they may view the above as sufficient military achievement.

However, if Ukrainians do "win" and push the Russians back to their borders then certainly everyone would agree that's failure, and nukes would be the only thing left at that point.

If a stalemate emerges in the current situation of failing to close the cauldron, it's unclear if that failure would overwhelm the achievements so far. Kremlin may simply accept a stalemate at this point as achieving "enough". Which could be incredibly unstable or then slowly transition into a sort of South-North Korea situation. For a lot of reasons, instability seems a better bet.

It's clear that the invasion is a massive failure so they will try and do anything to show Russian might and power again. — Christoffer

Agreed. If the Nuclear weapons are used by Russia it would be a show of might and power and most rational people will be afraid of that.

they either have the choice of nuking everyone or live in shame. — Christoffer

Untrue.

Lot's of conventional military options still available.

The use of nukes against Ukraine is still incredibly unlikely to lead to a strategic nuclear exchange with NATO.

But nuking everyone will make them the worst people in the history of mankind so they have little choice but to live in shame. — Christoffer

They may not see it that way, nor care. US used Nukes against Japan and Russia could use the exact same reasoning of needing nukes to save the lives of their soldiers.

Russia is rapidly becoming a real dumpster fire of a nation, where no one will want to live, work, or be associated with. That legacy will haunt Putin and his minions until someone breaks it to reform the country. — Christoffer

Unclear. As has been discussed at length, only the West is angry with Russia and no one else seems to care about it. If anything the large majority of the world feels satisfactory schadenfreude that the reckless and cynical warring ways of the West is coming home to roost (regardless of "who started it").

If "the only feasible retaliation available to Russia" is using tactical nuclear weapons then Putin should use them as soon as possible. — neomac

Well, this maybe why Russia denies the sinking of the flagship and the recent industrial fires are caused by Ukraine.

For, the only escalation response available would be tactical Nuclear weapons.

However, there can be plenty of political reasons not to use nuclear weapons at this point. In particular if the Kremlin predicts they'll win in Dombass and also avert more boats sinking and industrial fires and that the whole thing will blow over and things will return to some kind of normal.

However, if there are a series of attacks in Russia that normal Russian people find unacceptable and are a like "WTF Kremlin, what are you going to do about that", and all conventional weapons are already being used, then nukes are the only retaliation available.

Now, just because it would be the only retaliation available simply because all conventional weapons are pretty much already engaged, doesn't mean they would use them.

Putin could be "the bigger man" and explain later that nukes were on the table but he decided not to use them.

... Or ... or, the Kremlin is looking for the context to emerge where using nuclear weapons makes sense to the ordinary Russian and key allies.

Moscow and Saint Petersburg would get nuked in return. You don't want that. — Olivier5

Unlikely.

Russia using nuclear weapons against a non-NATO country would be a big escalation but probability is pretty low it would lead to a strategic nuclear exchange. There is no rational for striking Russian and risk strategic exchange.

NATO would be "mad" about it, but if NATO and EU have already done all they can do in terms of sanctions and weapons (now being blown up by Nukes), and further sanctions on energy would hurt the EU more than it hurts Russia, then the US maybe happy with the result as well, and escalation would stop simply because we arrived at the end of escalation road and the next step would be off the cliff into oblivion. The world would simply have to accept that Russia drops nukes now, it would get normalised over time, and the main consequence would be everyone rushes to get or make nuclear weapons (except around Russia because you get nuked if you do; hence, it may end up being a be a bigger problem for NATO anyways).

“The danger is serious, it is real, you can’t underestimate it,” Lavrov told the Interfax news agency. — Manuel

This simply isn't fear porn.

We've talked at length how nuclear escalation is possible.

It only seems less likely now because both sides have accepted the current situation.

The danger, however, is that neither side is willing to give-up and the stakes are amazingly high and the current situation is evolving slowly but not a stalemate.

If either side (NATO or Russia) gives-up they lose credibility.

Russia would lose a lot more credibility, so much so that it's nearly impossible to imagine they would give-up and therefore would resort to tactical nuclear weapons if need be. Losing the war in Ukraine would likely unravel the Russian state.

Western states wouldn't unravel if Ukraine lost to Russia (whatever definition of loss we're going with), but the US would immediately lose credibility in 2 of the 3 pillars of American hegemony of finance and covert operations, leaving only hard military power which is simply not enough to prop up the American empire for a bunch of reasons.

The window of opportunity of a quick diplomatic resolution is unfortunately over and both sides have committed to military solutions.

There is still the potential for the West to manage the war to a military victory for Russia but simply declare that Russia "learned its lesson" and was "stopped", in which case both sides can say they win and the news cycle changes to something else and we basically never hear about the war again (just like Iraq and Afghanistan: one more pointless war that destroyed the lives of millions of people on the way to losing face vis-a-vis other smaller empires).

In other words, the current "political stability", in the sense the rapid escalations have stopped and the current warfare is simply accepted by both sides, is maintained and then wound down.

There are, however, plenty of ways the current stability, of violent destruction, could be destabilised and a new cycle of rapid escalation is triggered.

Obviously Ukraine may get desperate and find some escalation that triggers some unexpected escalation from Russia, which triggers escalation from the West and so on.

However, it may also be the West that triggers escalation with things like Finnish NATO bids, which Russia may not do anything about ... or maybe they will decide its unacceptable and launch nuclear weapons against Finland before they join NATO. That could be solved diplomatically with a treaty to not station nuclear weapons or foreign troops within Finland, so that the military situation would be exactly the same, with both Finland and Russia not planning to attack each other, just that Finland is part of NATO and so that's a Western "win" against Putin and makes the Ukraine war totally worth it, even if every single Ukrainian dies. That would be the diplomatic thing to do to try to avoid further escalation, but so far the West has been in favour of escalation ... of course, as long as its Ukrainians dying as mentioned. If it's Finns that risk a few nukes, maybe the West will be less escalatory and actually work out some sort of deal that Finland and/or Sweden join NATO without triggering some new round of escalation.

Keep in mind that the optimum military strategy for Russia is to break the ice on the use of tactical nuclear weapons.

If the Russians use tactical nuclear weapons during this conflict then the precedence is set and they can simply do so in any other regional conflict for easy victory ... and even easier intimidation.

Therefore, if there is a political context conducive to the rationalisation, both domestically and to their remaining international partners, of the use of nuclear weapons they will likely take advantage of the provided opportunity.

The USA justified the use of nuclear weapons in Japan to save American lives in face of a fanatical enemy, and, that justification to save Russian lives in face of a fanatical enemy is likely to play just as well in Russia as it does in the US, if there is no conventional military victory relatively soon.

The disadvantages of breaking the ice of the use of nuclear weapons are also asymmetric. The main consequence is a new cycle of nuclear rearmament and proliferation around the globe. This is of course bad for Russia as it is everyone, but it could be argued it's even worse for NATO.

The situation only appears stable because we have become accustomed to it, and I would say the likelihood of nuclear weapons being used by the end of this conflict as about 50%, although extremely limited, mainly to show they aren't bluffing; break the ice and see what happens.

On many levels, Russia has few reasons not to use nuclear weapons; there is no reason for NATO to launch a strategic nuclear strike against Russia because it used a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine.

In particular, if Ukraine is able to continue to successfully blowup Russian industry and flagships (assuming all that was Ukraine), the only feasible retaliation available to Russia in the current situation maybe tactical nuclear weapons, and at some point retaliation is politically necessary and not just a good idea from a military perspective.

There's a lot of mathematics that can illuminate why all this is likely to be the case, but the short version is that it's the nature of this kind of crisis to get spontaneously worse and not spontaneously better.

I don't see the point of arguing after a certain amount of posts. It's roughly clear what each person thinks. But we do "reduce" each other into categories, probably unavoidably. — Manuel

I think what you mean to say is after a certain amount of posts it becomes clear some posters are here for purely propaganda purposes or then to protect their own fragile egos in interpreting being able to post with being able to make a coherent point, and have zero good faith engagement in the discussion.

For example, to argue there's not enough Nazis to justify invasion, presumes if there was enough it would justify invasion and one would need to provide that definition of "enough Nazis".

Those presuming "Russia bad" and "Ukraine good" but do not have an answer to this basic question are either:

A. not engaging in discussion in good faith, which always has a point to continue between good faith interlocutors willing to do so, and some discussions have literally been going on for thousands of years without reaching the "certain amount of posts" you mention ... even more notably, good faith interlocutors who are not willing to debate don't chime in just to complain that others are doing so.

B. pro Nazi.

You are completely delusional about what has been discussed in this thread.

Impressively, you manage to preamble your simplifying delusions with talk of complexity.

You actually manage to say:

This lack of complexity or lack of understanding that a situation has more sides than two is the biggest problem in this thread — Christoffer

Followed by:

It's a circlejerk for everyone who spent years criticizing Nato and the US, siding with Russia because of it. — Christoffer

Yet somehow also manage to follow that immediately with:

This thread is filled with self-righteous ideological BS instead of accepting what Russia is actually doing in Ukraine. — Christoffer

Again, how do you know that Russia does not have just cause?

No one so far has actually provided a solid argument, but only their self-righteous ideological BS.

If you use an international legalistic theory: why is it true? Why does Russia need to follow it?

I asked many, many, many pages ago the question of how many Nazis is too many Nazis. It's been declared several times there wasn't "enough" Nazis in Ukraine, but that presupposes some measure of enough that would justify invasion.

If it's clear there's not enough Nazis in Ukraine ... ok, such an argument must logically start with "this much would be too much" followed by evidence that Ukraine had less than their invasion justifying Nazi quota. Some apologetics were thrown out instead (not answering the question of how many is too many, which by definition is required to argue there's not enough), to which I posted the western journalists reporting that clearly demonstrated there is significantly more Nazi's with significantly more institutional power in Ukraine than elsewhere in the West ... which, if we're doing philosophy, even if it was true that there's no more Nazi's with no more power than any Western nation, the question of whether that's too much or not has still not been answered.

It's sickening the level of apologetics going on in here. — Christoffer

Please cite any dealing of the Nazi's in Ukraine as "not enough" that wasn't apologetics but some rigorous argument that, by definition, must start with an argument of how many Nazis is too many Nazis.

Ignoring the obvious war crimes and genocidal behaviors of a nation just to score some points on the anti-Nato board. — Christoffer

Pointing out hypocrisy is not whataboutism, but part of the "understanding the situation" that you nominally promote. Pointing out the US getting caught red handed perpetrating war crimes like torture and wars of aggression based on made up evidence is not whataboutism, as it helps understand the rest of the world, as @Isaac recently pointed out, not giving a shit anymore about the NATO's moralising, which helps understand why Russia has not been effectively cutoff from the global economy, which helps understand why it can continue to wage war and the goal of the sanctions was not accomplished. And, if non-Western countries no longer even bother listening to NATO's moralising, then it also helps explain why Russians, as far as we can tell, are even less affected by it.

The decades of hypocrisy are essential to understanding the geopolitical situation, which, in turn, is essential for understanding the situation.

As for war crimes, it's simply a fact the only war crimes so far with essentially definitive proof are what the Ukrainians self-document and post to the internet themselves. This is essentially definitive proof as it cannot be doubted as Russian propaganda.

Of course, you can say Russians have committed more crimes but are just less operationally incompetent and don't proudly post it to Twitter ... but, obviously that's not a basis for proof.

As for allegations, the nature of allegations is they need to be proven, and, once proven, the nature of the legal system cited A. means nothing as does not have jurisdiction over the Russians and B. still actually needs a prosecution process.

Pointing out that talk of "crime" requires talk of "evidence" and the potential for the accused to "defend themselves" and then some, hopefully, credible prosecution and impartial judgement, is simply explaining what a "war crime" means apart from self-righteous ideology. If you get rid of the evidence and prosecution and some trusted legal institution that renders justice ... what is left in the meaning of "war crime"?

It, in that case, reduces to: I don't like it.

And, if that's your definition. I don't like it either, so we'd be in agreement.

I rather turn to the real people around me actually researching this shit than continue trying to convince people who're stuck in their own echo chambers. — Christoffer

Have you been on reddit about this subject?

This is potentially the most deluded and insane projection I have ever seen anywhere in any context.

You actually have the gumption to call this thread a circle jerk.

Have you visited /r/worldnews on the topic of Ukraine?

I was able to find only a single "pro Russian" (according to your definition) comment on the entire top thread of r/worldnews (since I'll actually bother to verify your claim reddit is an echo chamber of pro Russian sentiment right now):

https://old.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/u6w4fn/rworldnews_live_thread_russian_invasion_of/

Which was an answer to the following question:

Out of curiosity, what are the worst takes/opinions youve seen in these live threads?

And was:

That NATO should place a bunch of missiles on the Finnish border by St Petersburg as soon as they join.

That attempted diplomacy is somehow bad, even though it very rarely hurts the situation and is always the preferable solution if it does work.

That Russia has never contributed anything to the world.

The continuous outrage that the UN is the UN and not whatever world government type of organization that people seem to think it is.

That the world is or could be forced to be fair. — khomyukk

Now, if you can find a bunch of more pro-Russian content, please cite it. If you can't ... what would it mean that an entire thread of hundreds of comments is only jingoistic celebration of the "cause du jour"? And, honestly, as far as I can tell, comments I really don't think are up to your standards of complexity and nuance.

Can you cite the comments you're referring to?

But, if I understand correctly, because a few lower-ranked people did face some prosecution, all the people that orchestrated the fake intelligence, torture, mass spying and so on, it's ok that they didn't face any consequences ... because a few lowly grunts were thrown under the bus.

You're really using the daily show pointing out the absurdity, criminality and hypocrisy of the system (and people facing no consequences) as evidence the "system works"?

In short, corruption is possible when people don't value honest work and don't respect the order of things.
It then stands to reason that in order to minimize corruption, people need to value honest work and respect the order of things. — baker

So your plan of action is to just get rid of the people who don't value honest work and respect the order of things?

That's not rocket science. Plain old common decency will do. — baker

If all the people without plain old common decency were exterminated (the people that cause the problems) then all would be well?

Not skin color per se, but the specific assumption about the level of civilization of a certain people. The general trend of this assumption being that the darker the skin color of a people, the less civilized they are. And the less civilized someone is assumed to be, the more the people who deem themselves more civilized are justified to patronize or despise them. — baker

What the fuck are you talking about?

Apart from justifications, what I meant was that the undemocratic political processes and what amounts to Ukraine's sovereignty caused ethnic conflict and instability. Sounds rather familiar, sounds like some sort of a plan, or Chernobyl - like accident. There is no doubt those involved know what actually happened. Neither side is at fault, but a third, outside force and 'actor' to use the term somewhat in irony, seems to be to blame. — FreeEmotion

Totally agreed there's outside parties as well, making the legalistic debateoids even less conclusive.

However, I would still say faults are all around, they are easy to distribute and it's difficult to run out of that supply.

Sounds like a dirty, disingenuous circus act-like media manipulation, not 'journalism' by any stretch of the imagination. More like a soft Mafia. — FreeEmotion

Soft power, soft mafia. I can definitely get behind that presentation of things.

Although, be that as it may, some of these mafias we can influence, if not choose who the boss happens to be. Sometimes Kodos is just objectively a better choice.

The UK and US are heavily invested in this war and its continuance, so don't imagine their official representatives will do anything other than stoke the flames — Leto

I agree that's how things seem now.

However, policy can change abruptly.

Other EU nations may push behind the scenes for a peace deal and use their leverage. The Ukrainian commitment to the war may also change regardless of US and UK desires.

Or, if promoting the war is suddenly a political liability than an asset, then being the "peace maker" may all of a sudden be politically expedient.

There are certainly factions in the US and UK political establishment that rather peace, deescalate with Russia, reduce inflation, stop pouring money into Ukraine when there's problem at home, and so on.

Didn't the war start because of the 2014 coup in Ukraine, and if Russia had somehow prevented the coup from taking place, then it would have avoided war? — FreeEmotion

Exactly, you can keep making these sort of "debateoids" forever.

The legal arguments will never end because there's no judge and state to decide how it's going to be, which rights are more important, what facts are true, and who's "wrong" or then "more wrong".

Both sides will say the other "started it" and if are pro-one-side and lose that debate, you'll just switch to having started it for just cause reasons anyways, and if you lose that debate you'll then say the other side is evil anyways and the war is right to fight that evil even if it wasn't started for legally recognised just-cause reasons.

The problem with legal reasoning is that it's overdetermined. Everyone has too many rights and too many claims to all be simultaneously satisfied.

It's simply not a good framework to approach international relations.

Let's say the allies "fired the first shot" in WWII ... would that change our opinion of the Nazi's or our satisfaction of their defeat (mostly paid with Russian lives)?

There's simply far more going on in moral and political and factual understanding of the world than can be reduced into a few rights based arguments.

Obsession with rights is an obsession with privilege (only the privileged, such as board members, lawyers, professors, have any effective rights) and a denial of responsibility: "I have a right!" as opposed to "I'm trying to make a good decision, morally sound and best for society, and I'm responsible for my actions."

CNN: Weapons for Ukraine
Russian soldiers discussed atrocities
Video appears to show execution of Russian prisoner by Ukrainian forces (does this help Russia?) — FreeEmotion

It helps Russia a bit, sort of "signals" that Russia does have a perspective, and maybe some points and maybe Ukraine isn't perfect.

However, notice that we apply critical scrutiny to Russia. The video only "appears" to show something, and is not categorical proof of an atrocity such as the Bucha video (which as you pointed out, is still just a video also just appears to show something).

This sort of signal can be for 1 of 2 purposes (likely both).

First, it adds a little false-balance to protect against the claim that CNN is only doing information war for Ukraine: a la "see, we also reported a potential Ukrainian crime against a Russian." And the scale is so vastly different that it gives the impression that at most Ukrainians have done individuals murders and so zero comparison with atrocities and genocide.

Second, it prepares people for a diplomatic resolution, which CNN maybe instructed to prepare people for (a little mention from the white house or Langley to balance things a bit out a bit to help a peace deal), or then maybe is just hedging it's bets because it doesn't know if there will be peace or more war so it has two editorial directions it can go in.

There's almost always a diplomatic solution to problems, no matter how acrimonious things get.

As I mention in previous posts the West has fully bought into the narrative around Bucha, so they can't easily pull back from that; if everyone now wants a peace deal, one solution is to tell the Russians that no one's changing their rhetoric (just as Russia's not changing their rhetoric), and what's true or false doesn't really matter, but for the sake of peace what the West can do is at least balance things out a bit by bringing up a bunch of Ukrainian crimes, and then everything, overtime, can be blamed on individual soldiers and units, there will be long legal processes where everything gets super messy and drawn out and the rhetoric is gradually deescalated, and the news cycle moves on to the next "most important thing in the world to be angry about".

So, if there is no peace deal, then this single video "appearing" to show the "extrajudicial execution" of a Russian soldier (aka. murder), well it's only an appearance, only one soldier being murdered, and only one Ukrainian doing it on their own initiative anyways. So, hardly an "atrocity" or throwing any shade on Ukrainian institutions or Zelenskyy. It doesn't undermine much at all Ukrainian just cause. So if there's no peace process, focus can switch back to hating the Russians and just reporting anything Ukraine says on face value.

However, if there is a peace process, then CNN and other Western news agencies can build on this little seed of doubt and Russia legitimate grievances, and add a few more stories (there's plenty to choose from, especially the Azov guys who will literally post war crimes to Twitter) to balance things out enough for the peace deal to make sense: i.e. suddenly expose people to just how chaotic, messy and violent war is and soldiers do crazy things and crime on both sides, and facts are super difficult to know, but it's best the war stops and things will be investigated and it's time to heal and rebuild and all that.

Keep in mind that Russia does't care all that much what Western media says, it's got its own media. However, Western media will need to sell a peace deal to Western audience and therefore will need to pullback the rhetoric of Putin literally being Hitler and a single video proves a "genocide" in someway comparable to the organised extermination of 6 million jews, gypsies, mentally ill and other "untermensch".

Self-determination means nothing to you then? You have no criteria for it, no way to ascertain it? — Olivier5

That's the whole points, what right to I have to determine how you determine self-determination for yourself?

How would you figure out what they want without asking them? — Olivier5

That's the whole idea of self-determination: none of my business to figure out anything. I have no "right" about it.

I am not part of their "self" and therefore have no right to determine anything in contradiction to their right to self determination.

And if Ukrainian state has a right that's more important than Crimea or Dombas right to self determination because they were part of the Ukrainian state before ... then it follows Russia can assert the same "more important right" over the whole of Ukraine because Ukraine was part of Russia before.

The legal arguments don't go anywhere as rights are too vague and too many people have them to determine anything, without a judge and a state to decide who's rights, of all the competing claims and rights in contradiction, will prevail in a given circumstance.

If you create some doctrine that a state has a right to recover a breakaway region, obviously that doctrine will be tailored to your predetermined objectives of what breakaway regions you think a given state should recover and which breakaway regions ... we don't talk about that here: a la Ukrainians can fight for their land, by American natives have no right to fight for their land, or any other native population, or the British to recover the breakaway region of the United States and so on. "Rights" of these kinds don't matter in determining international relations: but, rather, who's won what wars and who can win what war.

Okay so you dot exactly know when he was told but it was after or soon before the start of the war. — Olivier5

The way he expresses that he asked NATO if they could join in 2 years of 5 years, or then just say no, makes no sense in the context of an ongoing war, which, a few sentences before he makes clear his desire to join NATO tomorrow. It makes zero sense the idea that just a week before he asked NATO if Ukraine could join in 2 years or 5 years while the war was ongoing.

We know he was offered a peace deal, that both Russia, US and the EU would back.

A peace deal he rejected. You agree his hands weren't tied. It's clear Ukraine isn't joining NATO ... so the result after the war will be exactly the peace deal offered before the war (but with more concessions and death) which is Ukraine not in NATO.

It's also clear that his only strategy was to get NATO involved in the war, he spends considerable effort on joining NATO, even after the war starts, using every social media stunt possible including handing out small arms to civilians, and then spends considerable amount of time on requesting a no-fly zone.

He is responsible for his decisions and the outcome.

So my case is strengthened: it was not a priority for him to change the constitution before the war. He had no good reason to do so. — Olivier5

Case strengthened how?

It's also just common sense that Ukraine won't be joining NATO, so he'd be responsible to understand that anyways (even if NATO was leading him on, which we now know wasn't the case, if he wants to be president of a country he should know anyways these common sense things).

Likewise, if the constitution wasn't his priority because peace wasn't his priority and he prefers a war with Russia and that was his priority. Mission accomplished.

But you personal bias against the democratically elected leader of a nation invaded by a militaristic autocracy is noted. — Olivier5

Correction: democratically elected and self determined militaristic autocracy.

In theory, that's precisely what it implies and requires: a vote. — Olivier5

So ... in theory, if I call for better more transparent voting the US, Ukraine or anywhere, that removes the right to self determination?

Why can't Crimea decide how it will vote and "self determine" what a vote? If you say it's not valid due to Russian influence, why can't Crimea decide to be influenced by Russia?

There is no world government that decides what is and is not a legitimate democratic vote ... and the right to self determination can include swearing an oath to a king.

It's a pretty vague concept without any clear meaning to begin with. It sounds good "self determination" but there is no agreed global governing framework to implement it ... and indeed "self determination" is intrinsically in conflict with the very idea of a global government to give it legally precise meaning of exactly who get's to self determine themselves anything and how.

Ukraine invoked it in it's argument to join NATO ... Crimea and Dombas can invoke it in their argument to join Russia.

It's another legal concept that sounds good to say, everyone likes to say it so usually is fine with other people saying it ... until the moment your right to self determination conflicts with mine then your right isn't a "real right" for some random reason, is how this "right" plays out in the real world. Pretty much every nation invokes it's right to self determination while denying the very same right to any of its components.

On the contrary, he is the one asking for a transparent popular vote in Crimea. — Olivier5

If you have a right to self determination, don't you have a right to carry out votes as you please?

Why would it matter what Zelenskyy thinks of how Crimea votes.

Point in all that is that legalistic reasoning to justify war cuts both ways, and will never resolve the war.

If Ukraine can use it's right to self determination to justify attacking the Dombas region, the Dombas region can use it's right to self determination to reject Ukraine's right to self determination and to ask Russia to intervene on it's behalf, just as Ukraine has the right to ask NATO to intervene on its behalf.

I am not arguing that "Russia is right". I'm arguing that these kinds of arguments will never resolve.

Legal arguments get resolved because a judge makes it so and a state enforces the judges opinion. Left to themselves, lawyers would never reach some sort of consensus about pretty much any acrimonious dispute but would keep arguing about it until the end of time.

If there is no judge and no state that will "provide justice" then the only alternative is trial by combat (aka. war) or then to talk it out. That is the purpose of such arguments.

The other purpose is to point out that diplomacy and statecraft is required to avoid unnecessary suffering even if immense suffering is unavoidable with our current nation state system.

I do not like the state and I do not view it as a natural organ of human organisation and is so dangerous, but insofar as states exist, precisely because it is so dangerous, I much the state be in competent hands who at least understand statecraft, just as I don't like nuclear weapons but, insofar as they are around, I much prefer them to be in the hands of competent officers who understand their craft of command and control and practice it honorably and care for them, precisely because they are so horrifyingly dangerous.

In short, in my view we are as much morally obliged to be repulsed and horrified by the state as we are morally obliged to care for it.

But that quote is dated a week after the start of the war. Before the war, he was never told that. — Olivier5

My interpretation was that he was told before the war, and apart of his reasons for becoming more cold on NATO for a while.

Considering Chancellor Olaf Scholz went to Zelenskyy before the war to try to convince him to give up NATO aspirations and take a deal backed by Putin and Biden, it seems to me exceedingly likely that he was informed then and also before that he would not be joining NATO.

Which if NATO told him, it's not so duplicitous (not leading him on as it appeared originally), and just basic diplomacy. NATO coming out and publicly shutting the door would be humiliating, so they're saying the big boy words in private, that Zelenskyy needs to deal with.

Total agreement once again.

If you think about it hard enough Russia is the real victim here! — RogueAI

Dombas isn't Russia and currently not even Russian.

You can say you started a war for legal, even moral, reasons, such as to crush a breakaway region for the glory of Ukraine.

It's still starting a war.

What evidence is there that Zelenskyy was told about that before the war? At what occasion did NATO tell him? — Olivier5

He literally said this on live television in a CNN interview, after making final desperate arguments to join NATO.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Sunday that if his country had been admitted into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization alliance earlier, then Russia would not have invaded the country.

“If we were a NATO member, a war wouldn't have started. I'd like to receive security guarantees for my country, for my people,” Zelensky told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria on “GPS,” adding that he was grateful for the aid NATO has provided since the invasion began. “If NATO members are ready to see us in the alliance, then do it immediately because people are dying on a daily basis.”

He continued, “But if you are not ready to preserve the lives of our people, if you just want to see us straddle two worlds, if you want to see us in this dubious position where we don't understand whether you can accept us or not — you cannot place us in this situation, you cannot force us to be in this limbo.”
"I requested them personally to say directly that we are going to accept you into NATO in a year or two or five, just say it directly and clearly, or just say no," Zelensky said. "And the response was very clear, you're not going to be a NATO member, but publicly, the doors will remain open," he said. — CNN

Yet on February 14's, Zelenskyy made a speech still arguing and requesting to join NATO.

Refresh my memory and present evidence of that, oh noble liar for the great One. — Olivier5

I do not believe in the just cause justifying lying about the reasons for the just cause in the first place.

I suppose some lying is required to do covert actions, and undercover police work, and I suppose there's other morally arguable situations for lying, but I do not support lying about the reasons for war in the first place or the reasons to reject peace in order to manipulate one's citizens and other politicians into supporting more war.

That's a lie again. Mr Zelenskyy started no war. — Olivier5

I said he continued the war that Ukraine started by refusing to accept Crimea and Dombas right to self determination. Sure, you can say Ukraine attacked the Dombas because they have no right to self determination, and it was "legal", but that's still starting a war about the issue, a war that would simmer and lead to this larger war and increased risk of WWIII, not just due to escalation of this war but permanent higher risk due to the new cold war.



Is an interesting documentary about the war in the Dombas region made in 2016.

I watched it yesterday ... but it seems I'm not allowed to watch it today. (At least for me it has a button "I understand and wish to proceed" but then nothing happens if I click said button. https://youtu.be/RUP6B_GYMmA link plays.)

To you, certainly it is. But not to me. — Olivier5

Yeah... key word maybe. As in "Maybe it's perfectly clear".

What lie are you talking about, oh confused one? — Olivier5

Zelenskyy pretending to not have been told NATO would never let Ukraine in, but advocating to join NATO and making social media stunts for the purposes of joining NATO etc. is one of those "the big lie" as a rational to fight the Russians.

That's a lie. Ukraine is fighting to defend herself, not for the right to enter NATO. — Olivier5

One of the big reasons for the first week, and evening continuing after, was "the right to join NATO". Repeated by Zelenskyy and the whole reason to make Ukrainian civilians legitimate military targets was that it would be further reason to join NATO. You may have a short memory, but "Ukraine has a right to join NATO" was not only a reason to fight, but also a reason to refuse Russia's peace terms ... but if it turns out Zelenskyy already was told by NATO that Ukraine would never join NATO than it's simply lying to motivate Ukrainians to fight and also motivate Ukrainians and other politicians (which do exist in Ukraine) to accept refusing Russia's peace terms, and it was echoed all over Western and social media, so was a big meme of the time.

Mr Putin decided to start a pretty atrocious war and threatened the world with nuclear Armageddon, if you remember. — Olivier5

So did Zelenskyy. And, keep in mind, the war that could start WWIII has been simmering since 2014 after Ukraine refused to give Crimea and Dombas regions the right to self determination and right to not join NATO, in the name of their right to self determination to join NATO. A war continued by Zelenskyy.

Likewise, if a peace deal is the only resolution of the war available to Russians, then understanding the Ukrainian perspective is required to find a peaceful resolution. Tell that to your masters. — Olivier5

I'm pretty they can get the Ukrainian perspective anytime of the day or night by turning on CNN.

Your post is very unclear. Try and write less but clearer. — Olivier5

Maybe it's perfectly clear but cause for pause for thought as I mention, and thus cognitive dissonance if one does not wish to pause to think about anything.

Pre-war, Zelenskyy might legitimely have had other priorities than changing the constitution. — Olivier5

The key point is not what plans Zelenskyy may have had.

The key point is telling the Ukrainian people to fight for the right to join NATO, make belief that NATO is coming if they fight hard enough and distribute small arms to civilians making them military targets, and so on.

Had Zelenskyy simply not mentioned joining NATO as a reason to fight, and came out with now that NATO told him that Ukraine would never join, ok, maybe we can give the benefit of the doubt that Zelenskyy worked with that information in some plausibly competent way, and, more importantly, he wouldn't have been lying about joining NATO, and fighting to join NATO, and constantly making speeches and demanding to join NATO and NATO direct intervention etc. for cause to fight rather than sue for peace in the first low-intensity week of the war.

More generally, why the agressive stance towards Zelenskyy? — Olivier5

Critical scrutiny is not "aggressive". Why the "aggressive" attitude towards Putin?

He's doing well, the best he can. — Olivier5

Lying about the reasons to fight and die are not "doing the best you can".

You are, in this claim, engaged in precisely the framework of assuming Zelenskyy has just cause, that fighting to the last Ukrainian is just cause, and whatever Zelenskyy needs to say to get arms and keep Ukrainians fighting and dying is just and beyond criticism because what needs to happen is Ukrainians fighting and dying, regardless of the outcome for Ukraine.

If one has to be a political realist and accept Putin as a player, as you have argued, what's the point of bitching endlessly about the other guy, Zelenskyy? — Olivier5

Accept Putin as a player?

One must accept the war is happening.

As I've said, if there's a military solution for Ukraine, then they need not sue for peace and you need not try to understand different perspectives for the purposes of a diplomatic resolution. And I've said many times that surprises happen in warfare all the time and maybe Ukraine will have some great victory and march on Moscow and write the history of it at their leisure.

However, if a peace deal is the only resolution of the war available to Ukrainians, then understanding the opposing perspectives is required to find a peaceful resolution.

We get the Ukrainian perspective, and not simply the perspective but the repetition of all their claims as factual in the Western media, if it was the reverse and the Western media just agreed with everything Putin said, then I'd try my best to present the Ukrainian perspective for the purposes of diplomacy and peace making.

And why was Scott Ritter banned from Twitter?

Just asking common sense questions and pointing out evidence is needed to actually answer common sense questions, which you may actually want answered before using the jump to conclusions mat.

Isn't it a bit too late for your advice? What difference does it make now, what Zelenskyy did or didn't do to change the Ukrainian constitution before the war? — Olivier5

It's obviously relevant that one of the main reasons for fighting and not making peace with Russia, and one major galvanization of Ukrainian and Western public opinion behind Ukraine was the "right to join NATO" which Zelenskyy was already told by NATO would never happen.

It's relevant to know things are setup by parties within Ukraine to frustrate peace making.

It's a pretty big lie, and so it's reasonable to suspect other big claims by Ukraine to also be lies; certainly not take them at face value if Zelenskyy is able to lie for weeks about a reason for fighting is to join NATO. For example, reasonable to suspect the claim, without even an investigation being conducted of any kind, of atrocities in Bucha being Russian war crimes, is maybe a lie too.

It also is pause for thought of whether Zelenskyy is even in control or then parties that change the constitution to frustrate peace making and therefore want to promote war. There's no statecraft reason to put in the constitution the aspiration to join NATO, it makes no sense except to hold one's population hostage in the hopes of forcing a NATO-Russia direct conflict.

Finally, seeing these sorts of lies and simply political incompetence (admitted to by Zelenskyy) ... and incompetence due to not taking this answer from NATO into account to begin with but then incompetence of just saying he knew all along in a CNN interview, may call into question the whole project of taking everything Zelenskyy says at face value and continuing the "scrutiny protection shield" that the Western media has created for him.

For, if he isn't "pure" and is capable of lying, either for his own purposes or then due to pressure from behind the scenes parties, and if his decisions aren't ordained by god to be good ones, then making scrutiny of Zelenskyy's claims "taboo" (for example kicking off twitter Scott Ritter, a ex-Marine and ex-UN weapons inspector, because he pointed out there's zero credible investigation and so basis to make any criminal accusations whatsoever, and evidence exists that even points to the executions, of white arm band wearing nominal Russian friendlies, being carried out by Ukrainians in a purge, they seem to have stated they would carry out, of collaborators), regardless of the "real truth" of any claim, it creates a moral hazard.

If Zelenskyy knows the Western media and social media corporations will simply buy whatever he says, then he has very little motivation to even look into or reflect on whether what he's saying is true, but a very high motivation to simply say whatever would be convenient to be true.

Western nations, media and social media corporations, simply taking everything he says on face value and placing automatically their seals of approval on it, creates the moral hazard of then not wanting an investigation to happen as it only risks exonerating, to a small or large extent, the Russians and demonstrating facts presented as 100% are in fact not 100%.

Western governments, in particular, buying into claims that may turn out later to be false, creates all sorts of incentives to prefer the war continuing so there is never a resolution and no investigations can ever credibly happen, and the news cycle simply refreshes the material of outrage with equally ambiguous claims so that no claims ever get credibly investigated, eventually everyone accepting that accusing the other side is just part of winning the "information war" and the truth doesn't matter in the slightest.

The truth not mattering in the slightest does not give justice to victims, whoever the perpetrators of the particular crime, and also makes a peace deal nearly impossible.

To make it very concrete, things seemed moving towards a peace deal before the Bucha images.

Now, had the West said that there needs to be an investigation, real substantive evidence before jumping to conclusions and a trial is actually needed to convict anyone of anything, had that signal been quick and strong that actual proof is needed to make a criminal conviction, then likely Zelenskyy would have backed off the claims himself, and the West not automatically believing whatever Ukraine says in their "information war" (the director of the CIA assures us Ukraine is winning) would place immense pressure on Zelenskyy to first bother to see what the truth may actually be, and motivate a peace deal (perhaps significant pressure to arrive at a peace deal if he gets the signal Western backing is not unconditional and there is risk an investigation will reveal the executions were Ukrainian Nazi's purging collaborators as they said they would do), and, in any event, sticking to the principle that criminal convictions need trials which need evidence and impartial investigators doesn't frustrate a peace deal.

However, simply repeating without any critical scrutiny whatsoever Ukrainian claims about Bucha certainly destroyed any chance of a peace deal following Russia withdrawal from North Ukraine, but may even, in itself, lead to a permanent state of war if Ukraine and Western backers now fear peace could lead to actual investigations (independent journalists, neutral countries, UN process etc.) not only casting doubt on accusations already 100% committed to but may even reveal evidence it was Ukrainian propaganda, whether staged or executing "collaborators".

So, lies matter a great deal.

What about Putin's lies? I don't see anyone in the West taking anything Putin says at face value.

We have not setup some moral hazard at the highest institutional level of Western governments of just believing whatever Putin says because he says it. Indeed, the opposite moral hazard has been creating of being able to just assume, with equally zero scrutiny, whatever Putin says that is inconvenient if true, to be a lie.

The ground work for these moral hazards laid by calling Putin literally Hitler for weeks if not years, and so at some point that claim starts to ring hollow without the "atrocities" to go with it.